Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 83–97 | Cite as

Computerized prompting partners and keystroke recording devices: Two macro driven writing tools

  • Thomas H. Reynolds
  • Curtis Jay Bonk
Development
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Recent research into composing processes has focused on instructional intervention strategies that promote effective composition practices within computerized writing environments. The field of computers and composition has benefitted both from advances in computing tools and developments in learning theory. The innovative computer tool discussed in this paper uses the macro-command language of a full-featured word processor to enact strategic support designed to help writers with their written work. From a theoretical standpoint, this tool created a writing environment based on Vygotskian theory of mediated learning and was grounded in an instructional strategy known as “procedural facilitation.” To evaluate the effectiveness of this computerprompting tool, a second macro application was used to log student keystrokes, thereby tracking student writing development, revisionary practices, and keystroke reactions to the prompting partner. Students using the prompting tool enacted divergent and convergent thinking assistance that appeared at the bottom of their computer screens while the system saved a process record of their keystrokes. Procedures for creating macro-driven prompting programs and keystroke-logging devices are discussed. Additionally, a catalog of prompts and summary of keystroke-mapping benefits are provided. Finally, our research using the macro-driven prompting partner and keystroke-register tool is detailed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Applebee, A.N. (1982). Writing and learning in school settings. In M. Nystrand (Ed.),What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Applebee, A.N. (1984). Writing and reasoning.Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577–596.Google Scholar
  3. Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction.Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in Instructional Psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert knowledge.” In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1, Research and open questions). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bonk, C.J., Cavalcante, R., Liszewski, A.B., & Reynolds, T.H. (1995).Microgenetic keystroke analysis of developmental differences in preadolescent composing. Paper presented 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Bonk, C.J., Hay, K.E., & Fischler, R.B. (1995).Five key resources for an electronic community of elementary student weather forecasters. Paper presented 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Bonk, C.J., Medury, P.V., & Reynolds, T.H. (1994). Cooperative hypermedia: The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments.Computers in the Schools, 10(1/2), 79–124.Google Scholar
  10. Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1991).A review of procedural facilitation in writing: Prompting questions for Vygotsky. Paper presented at convention of National Council of the Teaching of English, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  11. Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative- evaluative computerized prompting framework.Computers and Human Behavior, 8(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  12. Bonk, C.J., Reynolds, T.H., & Koury, K.A. (1993).Tracing developmental differences in composing through keystroke mapping. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. Bridwell, L., Johnson, P., & Brehe, S. (1987). Composing and computers: Case studies of experienced writers. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.),Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 81–107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  14. Bridwell, L., Nancarrow, P.R., & Ross, D. (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.),New directions in composition research. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. Bridwell, L., Sirc, G., & Brooke, R. (1985). Revising and computing: Case studies of student writers. In S.W. Freedman (Eds.),The acquisition of written language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Brooks, J.G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections.Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68–71.Google Scholar
  17. Bruer, J.T. (1993).Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, R. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daiute, C. (1985). Do writers talk to themselves? In S.W. Freedman (Ed.),The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 133–159). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. Daiute, C.A. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies in computers.Research in the Teaching of English, 20(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  21. Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes.Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 307–318.Google Scholar
  22. Dede, C.J. (1992). The future of multimedia: Bridging to virtual worlds.Educational Technology, 32, 55–60.Google Scholar
  23. Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (in press). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. To appear in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. NY: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  24. Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Fear, K.L., & Anderson, L.M. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write information texts.Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18–46.Google Scholar
  25. Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.Google Scholar
  26. Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carvey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision.College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16–55.Google Scholar
  27. Fosnot, C.T. (1984). Media and technology in education: A constructivist view.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 195–205.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, S.W., Dyson, A.H., & Chaffe, W. (1987).Research in writing: Past, present, and future. (Center for the Study of Writing, Technical Report No. 1.) Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students.Exceptional Children, 54(6), 506–512.Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kellogg, R.T. (1989). Idea processors: Computer aids for planning and composing text. In B.K. Britton, & S.M. Glynn (Eds.),Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Kozma, R.B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools.Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25.Google Scholar
  33. Kozma, R.B. (1991). The impact of computer-based tools and embedded prompts on writing processes and products of novice and advanced college writers.Cognition and Instruction, 8(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lajoie, S.P. & Derry, S.J. (Eds.). (1993).Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Landauer, T.K. (1988). Education in a world of omnipotent and omniscient technology. In R.S. Nickerson, & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Montague, M. (1990).Computers, cognition, and writing instruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers.Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.Google Scholar
  39. Papert, S. (1993).The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pea, R.D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem.International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pogrow, S. (1990). A Socratic approach to using computers with at-risk students.Educational Leadership, 47, 61–66.Google Scholar
  43. Resnick, L.B., & Johnson, A. (1988). Intelligent machines for intelligent people: Cognitive theory and the future of computer-assisted learning. In R.S. Nickerson, & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1990).The effects of generative and evaluative procedural facilitation on college writers' reprocessing of texts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1992).Repurposing the word processor. In N. Estes & M. Thomas (Eds.) The 9th International Conference on Technology and Education, (Vol.I, pp. 535–537). Paris, France.Google Scholar
  46. Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1996). Facilitating college writers' revisionary processes within a generative-evaluative prompting framework.Computers and Composition. (Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 93–108).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123–139.Google Scholar
  48. Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology.Communication Research, 17(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
  49. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the Writing Partner. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1,Research and open questions). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd edition, pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  53. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition.Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siegel, I. (1984). A constructivist perspective for teaching thinking.Educational Leadership, 42(3), 18–21.Google Scholar
  55. Soloway, E. (1993). Reading and writing in the 21st century.Communications on the ACM, 36(5), 23–27.Google Scholar
  56. Talbot, J. (1986). The assessment of critical thinking in history/social science through writing.Social Studies Review, 25(2), 33–41.Google Scholar
  57. Torrance, E.P. (1974).Norms and technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. (1986).Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century.Scientific American, September, 94–104.Google Scholar
  61. Witte, S.P. (1985). Revising, composition theory, and research design. In S. Freedman (Ed.),The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 250–284). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  62. Woodruff, E., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1981). On the road to computer assisted compositions.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 10(2), 133–148.Google Scholar
  63. Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner.American Educational Research Journal, 28, 373–391.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas H. Reynolds
    • 1
  • Curtis Jay Bonk
    • 2
  1. 1.the Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction at Texas A & M UniversityUSA
  2. 2.the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at Indiana UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations